What if God asked you to kill your son?

[Giants]

Your entire argument rests on your abnormal definition of murder being correct and the Catholic distinction between murder and killing being incorrect. Put simply-

Catholic
-causing the death of another in an immoral manner- murder
-causing the death of another in a moral manner- killing

Alright, so what makes the ‘manner’ in which I kill Abraham moral or immoral? What would be a moral way to do this, in your eyes? I’ve got a gun, I’ve got a machete. Rat poison might not be a practical option, but I’ve got that too. I don’t want to get too close, if I can help it. The man does have a knife, after all.

Yours
-causing the death of another in an immoral manner- murder, immoral
-causing the death of another in a moral manner- murder, moral

You are redefining murder and then basing your entire argument on this abnormal (and I’m not just saying abnormal in regards as to how the concept and term are used within Catholic teachings, your definition is also abnormal in regards to our amoral judicial system) definition in order to validate your argument. Your posts boil down to word games and self serving rationalizations.

We can keep chasing our tails with this, if you like, but my point stands. There is no practical distinction between killing and murder, other than the license that you (and our “amoral” (cough) justice system) give yourself to commit one without clearly violating your own standard for morality. The State says that strapping someone to a table against their will and pumping them full of pentobarbital is murder and illegal. But when the State does exactly the same thing, it’s not murder, and it’s not illegal, it’s just “capital punishment.” Why is that different? Because the State says so, that’s why.

I don’t approve of capital punishment, but the State would be on much firmer ground, at least philosphically, if they would adopt my rationale as their own. You could argue, though not all persuasively, that the Universe is a Better Place when we execute murderers - versus keeping them locked up for the rest of their lives. That’s actually an argument that intelligent people can have, drawing on facts about the world we live in. But that’s not the tact that the State has chosen.

 

[Giants]

I am not clear where this “God” of yours lives, but is he “Lord of life?” If he is, then you still need to explain why human beings have their lives taken from them, often in untimely fashion and for inexplicable reasons. Your “God” still needs to explain why he acts so capriciously.

The Christian God has determined that all human beings (except perhaps for two) merit death and therefore will or have died. For what reason does “your God” take human life, then?

Does your “God” allow killing in self-defense? Are there other justifiable reasons for killing? A police officer in the line of duty to protect an innocent life? Surely, your “God” would have morally justifiable reasons for allowing one person to kill another, no? In which case, could he not command the taking of a life for some justifiable reason that you could not fathom?

In other words, in theory, could your God not justifiably command you to take another human life for reasons beyond your ability to understand (given his omniscience)? The only way you could be sure that your God wouldn’t is if your God were identical to you. As soon as you admit the possibility of a God beyond your capacities, then short of claiming yourself to be omniscient and omnibenevolent, you leave yourself open to the possibility that this God of yours may act in ways beyond your understanding and control.

This may be why some have claimed the question to be a “loaded” one, after all.

This paragraph requires some clarification, in light of the “your God” statements in a previous post. You seem to be implying that the “model of Nazarene” cannot be reconciled with the God of the Old Testament because the “older” God “owns us as his property, can kill (and order killing) at his pleasure, and claims an endlessly superior moral foundation to do all of these things.” This is a crude way to express the apparent differences, but I am not clear that any conception of God can escape the problem, not even “your God.”

If God is omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent and the Creator/Sustainer of all that exists then

1. he does indeed have dominion over us (not as crudely put, but essentially the same as “owns us.”
2. can determine who or what merits to exist or not (can kill and order killing)
3. claims an endlessly superior moral foundation (omniscience and omnibenevolence insure that this is true.)

In short, I am not clear how any concept of a God with the classic 3O “qualities”, not even yours, if you have one, escapes the problematic issues you seem to believe only apply to the Old Testament God.

The God I was claiming in the earlier example was an amorphous hypothetical being. I was drawing, first, on the fact that there are many Gods currently in play around the world (in the minds of different people). Not to mention the thousands of dead Gods from millenia past that were once worshipped and are now forgotten. The God I invented in my example was deliberately obtuse. I feel the only definition he requires is that he is Personal, and that he does not put me in a corner with regard to obeying his Will, unconditionally, and having a track record of asking his creations to murder each other, for no apparent reason. You might want to argue that this isn’t much of a God, but I wouldn’t be surprised if this general description didn’t match that of a God that currently is worshipped somewhere, or at least was once worshipped.

 

[oldcatholicguy]

Alright, so what makes the ‘manner’ in which I kill Abraham moral or immoral? What would be a moral way to do this, in your eyes? I’ve got a gun, I’ve got a machete. Rat poison might not be a practical option, but I’ve got that too. I don’t want to get too close, if I can help it. The man does have a knife, after all.

We can keep chasing our tails with this, if you like, but my point stands. There is no practical distinction between killing and murder, other than the license that you (and our “amoral” (cough) justice system) give yourself to commit one without clearly violating your own standard for morality. The State says that strapping someone to a table against their will and pumping them full of pentobarbital is murder and illegal. But when the State does exactly the same thing, it’s not murder, and it’s not illegal, it’s just “capital punishment.” Why is that different? Because the State says so, that’s why.

I don’t approve of capital punishment, but the State would be on much firmer ground, at least philosphically, if they would adopt my rationale as their own. You could argue, though not all persuasively, that the Universe is a Better Place when we execute murderers - versus keeping them locked up for the rest of their lives. That’s actually an argument that intelligent people can have, drawing on facts about the world we live in. But that’s not the tact that the State has chosen.

Thanks for a long winded non-answer. If you’re done, I’d appreciate you actually addressing my points. You have issue with the Catholic moral distinction between murder and killing, but your counter argument is the Catholic moral distinction with just a change in terminology and a still unnamed source for your moral system. You seem to view any non-“yes or no” answer to the original loaded question as ducking and weaving, but when presented with a loaded question yourself, you give a non-yes or no" answer. An answer that in facts eliminates your ability to claim all murder as immoral and eliminates your ability to criticize the Catholic moral system because it has a root authority as to what is moral or immoral (The morality of “murdering” Abraham has to be based on something. If it’s based on the individual being the source than you can’t criticize because as long as the individual views his actions a moral, they are. If it’s based on an outside authority, than you can’t cry about the Catholic system unless you can somehow prove your authority is somehow more valid.)

 

[bzkoss236]

I’m pretty sure the definition of killing is the taking of a life, and not necessarily just human. You can kill a bear, a cat, a dog, even a tree. Killing is just the act of “removing” life from something. It is not immoral or moral as it stands. The morality of killing is determined by the situation. Murder is defined as the killing of one human by another. The definition itself does not imply morality, but the Catholic church adds that murder is a sin. I would even say that murder in self defense is a sin, but it is justified because you were protecting yourself or others, which would make it venial. Granted, I’m not an authority for saying what is and isn’t a sin, but from my understanding, this makes the most sense to me.

 

[Giants]

Thanks for a long winded non-answer. If you’re done, I’d appreciate you actually addressing my points. You have issue with the Catholic moral distinction between murder and killing, but your counter argument is the Catholic moral distinction with just a change in terminology and a still unnamed source for your moral system.

I’ve answered all of your points, and at some length (as you’ve quite uncharitably pointed out). My issue with the Catholic distinction between murder and killing is that it represents a distinction without a practical difference. I’ve asked you repeatedly to illustrate the principle that makes taking a human life a moral “killing” vs. an immoral “murder.” You’ve ignored me. I asked you if you’d take a human life to protect the life of your own child. You ignored me again. So what am I to conclude from this - except that these distinctions only exist in your mind for the sake of convenience?

The source of my moral system is unnamed because I’m not getting it from a voice in the sky. It’s based in a properly basic understanding of reality. A Universe where conscious creatures are suffering is worse than a Universe where they aren’t suffering. There’s no getting underneath that - not without trying to play some silly semantical games. Once you’ve accepted this as a foundational principle (as you must), you must further accept that certain behaviors will cause more suffering than others. Where we know this to be true, for example, where the stakes are the potential murder of an innocent person, we can answer moral questions using this properly basic, objective framework.

You seem to view any non-“yes or no” answer to the original loaded question as ducking and weaving, but when presented with a loaded question yourself, you give a non-yes or no" answer.

I gave an answer, to the extent that it was relevant. I don’t believe in God, so if I heard a voice in my head order me to kill my child, I would refuse the order, I wouldn’t recognize the source as God, and certainly not an authority that I’m required to obey.

 

[Peter_Plato]

. I feel the only definition he requires is that he is Personal, and that he does not put me in a corner with regard to obeying his Will, unconditionally, and having a track record of asking his creations to murder each other, for no apparent reason. You might want to argue that this isn’t much of a God, but I wouldn’t be surprised if this general description didn’t match that of a God that currently is worshipped somewhere, or at least was once worshipped.

Partly, your “track record” critique is based upon the Abraham episode. Might I suggest that the context of the story is critical in terms of understanding the whole point of the story. It wasn’t that God was exercising some absolute moral right to take life, but it was a “life lesson” intended to form Abraham’s understanding of the intentions of God.

Recall that God promised Abram that he would be the father of a nation that would number as many as the stars (hidden from Abraham but visible to God in the daylight sun).

Did Abraham, in the lead up to the story, have faith in God? In some sense he did, however…

After God’s promise to Abraham, he did have a son, Ishmael, through Sarai’s Egyptian maid Hagar. This was Sarai’s attempt to “hurry things along.”

When God let Abraham know that the son who would fulfill his promise to Abraham was not Ishmael but a son to be born through his post-menopausal wife, Sarah, Abraham laughed. And so did Sarah. (The name Isaac means “laughter.”)

After Isaac was born, Abraham, acting on the instigation of Sarai, sent Hagar and Ishmael into the desert of Bersheeba with little in the way of food or water in order that they would both die. This was a death sentence that Abraham pronounced on Hagar and Ishmael. Unknown to Abraham, God intervened and saved them both.

Why did God test Abraham by asking him to sacrifice Isaac?

Precisely because Abraham did not trust God. He and Sarai tried to make things that God had promised them happen in their own way. God was asking Abraham and Sarah to trust in God’s plan and not take it over.

Abraham thought his first son Ishmael was dead so when God emphasized, “Your only son, Isaac…” that stung Abraham’s conscience because he realized that his action in killing his first son, Ishmael, had completely forsaken and made him unworthy of God’s covenant with him. He had proven himself untrustworthy and unworthy of a covenant with God because he was responsible (he thought) for the killing of Hagar and Ishmael. In Abraham’s mind, God was taking Isaac away from him because God’s promise of making him the father of a nation had been justly revoked by God.

God demanding that Abraham sacrifice Isaac was to drive the point home to Abraham that God was in charge and that Abraham had jeopardized that by his own hand, which is why Abraham was being asked to give up Isaac “by his own hand.” The promise that he would be the father of a nation was being revoked, or so Abraham thought.

The fact that Abraham completely understood this was demonstrated by his willingness to leave Isaac in the hands of God. By giving Isaac over to God “by his own hand,” Abraham was letting God determine the outcome and no longer taking the course of events into his own hands. Abraham was no longer worthy of God’s promise, so it was being taken away from him through the sacrifice of Isaac. The son, Isaac, who was to fulfill the promise was being “taken back” by God. Recall that sacrifice in the Old Testament was done in atonement for wrongs done, in this case for the “killing of Hagar and Ishmael.”

Only through Abraham turning Isaac back over to God was the promise on track to be fulfilled. Abraham had shown complete trust in God, because he had experienced an overpowering realization of his own failings.

This says nothing in terms of the justification of sacrificing or killing children. If anything, it is confirmation that God does not want the sacrifice of children, which was prevalent in the area at the time and later. Furthermore, what this episode demonstrates is quite contrary to what many think it shows. It actually came about to demonstrate to Abraham that he did not do the right thing by abandoning Hagar and Ishmael to die in the wilderness at the provocation of his wife. God does not will the wanton killing of others, especially when we think we are “doing his will.”

 

[bsy]

Abraham, the father of all nations, offered his son Isaac, his only one, whom he loved, as a burnt offering Gen 22:2. Isaac was the sheep of the burnt offering… Gen 22:7

God, our Father in Heaven, gave up his only Begotten Son as the ultimate and perfect sacrifice. Jesus is the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world. Jn 1:29.

This is a prefigurement of the sacrifice on the cross.

---

In this time and age, if some entity claiming to be God told me to kill my son, I will say “devil, depart from me…you who appear as an angel of light is liar from the beginning…depart from me, in the Name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit…” since Jesus, Who is the Lamb of God, already gave up His life for the sake of humanity; He is already the ultimate and perfect sacrifice.

---

 

[TimothyH]

^^^This is the #1 answer.

As far as Isaac was concerned, God had no intention of allowing the boy to be killed. God tested Abraham so that Abraham would know he could trust God in all things.

This is key. All through scripture, God’s test is not a test of obedience, but the test of a Father to see whether Israel his son would trust him.

Abraham is the first to trust God. Trust, not obedience is why Abraham is the Father of Faith.

-Tim-

 

[oldcatholicguy]

I’ve answered all of your points, and at some length (as you’ve quite uncharitably pointed out). My issue with the Catholic distinction between murder and killing is that it represents a distinction without a practical difference.

If you bother to do some actual basic research on the Catholic faith (which isn’t to hard given the site we are on) you’d find the answer to moral distinction we make between murder and killing. I’ve asked you repeatedly to illustrate the principle that makes taking a human life a moral “killing” vs. an immoral “murder.” You’ve ignored me.
I’ve ignored you because I’m still trying to get you to explain how the Catholic moral distinction between murder and killing is wrong, but your murder can be moral or immoral is somehow more correct.I asked you if you’d take a human life to protect the life of your own child. You ignored me again. So what am I to conclude from this - except that these distinctions only exist in your mind for the sake of convenience?
You can conclude from this that I don’t see a reason to respond to such a question when the person asking the question is either to lazy or ignorant to learn this rather basic principle within Catholic theology himself. Then of course their’s your “murder is always immoral, except when it isn’t” nonsense.

The source of my moral system is unnamed because I’m not getting it from a voice in the sky. It’s based in a properly basic understanding of reality. A Universe where conscious creatures are suffering is worse than a Universe where they aren’t suffering. There’s no getting underneath that - not without trying to play some silly semantical games. Once you’ve accepted this as a foundational principle (as you must), you must further accept that certain behaviors will cause more suffering than others. Where we know this to be true, for example, where the stakes are the potential murder of an innocent person, we can answer moral questions using this properly basic, objective framework.
So in other words, my “voice from the sky morality system” is wrong, but your self defined morality system based on some poorly defined greater good is perfectly ok? Yeah…that’s sounds like it’s so much more valid. Mind linking us the supporting works that compare the two systems and show yours to not only be valid, but more valid than mine? That way I can stop being one of those silly believers. Thanks.

I gave an answer, to the extent that it was relevant. I don’t believe in God, so if I heard a voice in my head order me to kill my child, I would refuse the order, I wouldn’t recognize the source as God, and certainly not an authority that I’m required to obey.
No, my question was sinse you deem murder to be immoral would you murder Abraham in order to save Isaac. Your first response wasn’t yes/no, it was you suddenly deciding that some murder was ok (moral) and murdering Abraham would be moral.

Face it man, you’re making blank up as you go along.

 

[Giants]

If you bother to do some actual basic research on the Catholic faith (which isn’t to hard given the site we are on) you’d find the answer to moral distinction we make between murder and killing.

Why is that Christians are so quick to lecture the rest of us on our presumed “ignorance” of their faith, but so slow to actually educate us when their faith is so challenged?

Honestly, in all the time you’ve spent in this back-and-forth, you could’ve answered my question any number of times. You refused. And not only have you refused, you’ve self-righteously pretended that you’re justified in refusing, because I’ve somehow avoided addressing your talking points.

I’ve ignored you because I’m still trying to get you to explain how the Catholic moral distinction between murder and killing is wrong, but your murder can be moral or immoral is somehow more correct.

So in other words, my “voice from the sky morality system” is wrong, but your self defined morality system based on some poorly defined greater good is perfectly ok? Yeah…that’s sounds like it’s so much more valid. Mind linking us the supporting works that compare the two systems and show yours to not only be valid, but more valid than mine? That way I can stop being one of those silly believers. Thanks.

It’s not ‘self-defined,’ and I’ve explained to you why it’s more valid. My basis for morality has a properly basic foundation. Yours does not. Yours depends on the existence of God (and several other things) being true. To say nothing of the other things, the existence of God is, at best, unproven. My moral basis is self-justifying - you can’t undercut without being self-deluded, or pretending to be. And my moral basis has been around since conscious creatures appeared in the Universe - which is to say, at least few hundred million years longer than Christianity.

For further explanation, here is a link to the book you can buy, and a link for you to check out. Please be forewarned: there are lots and lots of words to read. You’re welcome.

amazon.com/The-Moral-Landscape-Science-Determine/dp/143917122X/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1353382865&sr=8-1&keywords=the+moral+landscape

samharris.org/site/full_text/response-to-critics

No, my question was sinse you deem murder to be immoral would you murder Abraham in order to save Isaac. Your first response wasn’t yes/no, it was you suddenly deciding that some murder was ok (moral) and murdering Abraham would be moral.

Again, you’re confusing my position on this with your own. You’re the one who believes all murder is immoral, except when it’s not, in which case you call it “killing.” I’m saying, quite explictly and without apology, that not all murder is immoral (but that all the taking of human life is murder). And I did answer your question: given no other option, I would kill Abraham to save Isaac. You thought you were asking me a loaded question, and now you’re imagining that I waffled on it, because that probably what you expected me to do. Sorry about that.

 

[StrawberryJam]

This is key. All through scripture, God’s test is not a test of obedience, but the test of a Father to see whether Israel his son would trust him.

Abraham is the first to trust God. Trust, not obedience is why Abraham is the Father of Faith.

-Tim-

How can we know that Abraham is the first to trust God?
Knowing things are a little different than believing things. Maybe they are the same thing to believers.

 

[jochoa]

I heard this question recently, and they say that if I answer Yes, then I am crazy, and I am a religious fanatic, but if I answer No, then I don’t trust in God too much, and I couldn’t be a Christian.

How do I answer this question?

Thank you very much for this excellent food for thought, my friend! Please consider my response:
When God asked me to kill my son, I responded, “Okay. However, if you have told me not to murder anyone, and have told me to always be patient and kind towards everyone for you, how do I kill my son, while being charitable towards him and without murdering him?”

He responded, “Make him not matter to you. Have no worries for him. Do your best to help him when you can. And when you can’t…remember you already gave him to me in baptism, so know I will guide my son closer to me in time, and we will be rejoicing in Heaven soon!”

Then I made the connection:
If my son goes from mattering to me to no longer mattering to me, then he essentially went from existing in my life to no longer existing in my life. And in the act of killing, we make lives go from existing to no longer existing. Therefore, I learned how to kill my son without having to murder him, while continually being patient and kind towards him for God.

Thoughts?

 

[oldcatholicguy]

Why is that Christians are so quick to lecture the rest of us on our presumed “ignorance” of their faith, but so slow to actually educate us when their faith is so challenged?
You come to not only a Catholic website, but an apologetic Catholic website, jump onto a thread concerning Catholic moral teaching and arrogantly post your poorly defined moral system is somehow more correct than the Catholic moral system without bothering to do basic research on Catholic morality and completely ignore any corrections to your ignorance and somehow Christians are lecturing you about your presumed ignorance? Sure. I’m sure it’s us just not wanting to answer your question and has nothing to do with the fact that if you are too arrogant or ignorant to realize that you need to have a basic understanding of what you are arguing against than you are to arrogant or ignorant to be taught.

Honestly, in all the time you’ve spent in this back-and-forth, you could’ve answered my question any number of times. You refused. And not only have you refused, you’ve self-righteously pretended that you’re justified in refusing, because I’ve somehow avoided addressing your talking points.
You have avoided my points. You’ve ignored my point concerning the fact the only difference between how we view murder/killing and how you view murder (moral/immoral) is how you use an abnormal definition of murder. You’ve ignored my point concerning how if we apply your same criteria concerning murder to theft than borrowing should really be classified as moral theft. You’ve ignored my point about how you’ve basically demanded a yes/no answer to the original loaded question, but when faced with your own you gave a qualified (i.e. non-“yes/no” answer). And you’ve ignored my point concerning your lack of basic understanding of Catholic moral teachings.

It’s not ‘self-defined,’ and I’ve explained to you why it’s more valid. My basis for morality has a properly basic foundation. Yours does not.
Which is nothing more than your poorly supported opinion.
Yours depends on the existence of God (and several other things) being true. To say nothing of the other things, the existence of God is, at best, unproven.
That would mean lack of proof= invalid. Please prove that unproven statement. Then please show us how your philosophy meets the criteria you are using (i.e. show us where it’s been proven).
My moral basis is self-justifying - you can’t undercut without being self-deluded, or pretending to be. And my moral basis has been around since conscious creatures appeared in the Universe - which is to say, at least few hundred million years longer than Christianity.
For someone who likes proof, that’s (the bolded text) a rather unproven and unprovable claim.

For further explanation, here is a link to the book you can buy, and a link for you to check out. Please be forewarned: there are lots and lots of words to read. You’re welcome.

amazon.com/The-Moral-Landscape-Science-Determine/dp/143917122X/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1353382865&sr=8-1&keywords=the+moral+landscape

samharris.org/site/full_text/response-to-critics

Sure, as soon as you meet your own criteria and prove it’s not based on an unproven assumed truth (hint- not possible)

Again, you’re confusing my position on this with your own. You’re the one who believes all murder is immoral, except when it’s not, in which case you call it “killing.” I’m saying, quite explictly and without apology, that not all murder is immoral (but that all the taking of human life is murder).
Actually, Catholic morality is so sure of the difference between moral and immoral causing the death of another human that we have two distinct terms for it. The fact that your philosophy uses the same term for both and only adds a qualifier to it would indicate to me that your philosophy makes less of a distinction. Yes, terms matter. That’s why borrowing isn’t called “moral theft” and telling the truth isn’t called “moral lying.”

And I did answer your question: given no other option, I would kill Abraham to save Isaac. You thought you were asking me a loaded question, and now you’re imagining that I waffled on it, because that probably what you expected me to do. Sorry about that.
You meant to say you would murder Abraham right? After all, murder and killing are the same.

 

[oldcatholicguy]

If my son goes from mattering to me to no longer mattering to me, then he essentially went from existing in my life to no longer existing in my life. And in the act of killing, we make lives go from existing to no longer existing. Therefore, I learned how to kill my son without having to murder him, while continually being patient and kind towards him for God.

Thoughts?

No because the root intent of your act is causing the death of your son. Look at self-defense. The death of the attacker isn’t the root intent. Defending yourself is the root intent, the death of the attacker is a byproduct of that. That’s why if you cause the death of the attacker when you could defend yourself otherwise (not kill him) it goes from moral to immoral. An example of the first would be someone coming at you with a gun with the clear intent to harm you and your only option is to shoot him. An example of the second would be a drunk tries to attack you (no weapons) from 10 feet away in a room full of cops. The first your only option in defending yourself is to cause the death of the attacker, the second you have other options available.

 

[FightingFat]

I heard this question recently, and they say that if I answer Yes, then I am crazy, and I am a religious fanatic, but if I answer No, then I don’t trust in God too much, and I couldn’t be a Christian.

How do I answer this question?

It’s a rubbish question. We know from the story of Isaac and Abraham that God would not ask to to kill your son. It would be wrong and God does not ask us to do things that are wrong.

 

[Giants]

PeterPlato:

Abraham thought his first son Ishmael was dead so when God emphasized, “Your only son, Isaac…” that stung Abraham’s conscience because he realized that his action in killing his first son, Ishmael, had completely forsaken and made him unworthy of God’s covenant with him. He had proven himself untrustworthy and unworthy of a covenant with God because he was responsible (he thought) for the killing of Hagar and Ishmael. In Abraham’s mind, God was taking Isaac away from him because God’s promise of making him the father of a nation had been justly revoked by God.

There’s a problem with this interpretation, however. Here are the relevant verses in Genesis:

8-The child grew and was weaned, and on the day Isaac was weaned Abraham held a great feast. 9-But Sarah saw that the son whom Hagar the Egyptian had borne to Abraham was mocking, 10-and she said to Abraham, “Get rid of that slave woman and her son, for that slave woman’s son will never share in the inheritance with my son Isaac.”

11-The matter distressed Abraham greatly because it concerned his son. 12-But God said to him, “Do not be so distressed about the boy and your maidservant. Listen to whatever Sarah tells you, because it is through Isaac that your offspring will be reckoned. 13-I will make the son of the maidservant into a nation also, because he is your offspring.”

niv.scripturetext.com/genesis/21.htm

Notwithstanding that it was Sarai who pressured Abram to impregnate Hagar in the first place, and also she who pressured him to send Hagar and Ishmael away after Isaac was born, God himself went out of his way to endorse Sarah’s idea and reassure Abraham.

Even if I grant that Abraham’s laughing at God’s promise to send him a child at his advanced age was evidence of a lack of faith, is there any textual evidence to support the idea that this lack of faith continued even beyond this point? God ultimately did fulfill his original promise to Abraham and Sarah with a child of their own - you’d think even a true skeptic would stop doubting at some point.

Moving ahead to Genesis 22 - God does refer to Isaac as Abraham’s “only begotten son.” Regardless of what Abraham knew or didn’t know about the fate of Ishmael at that particular moment, this was, in a sense, true. Ishmael’s not there anymore - and he’s not coming back. If Abraham kills Isaac, he has nobody left in his immediate life (notwithstanding the promise that Ishamel’s descendents would be a nation as well). Further, I don’t care how many kids you have running around the house - for someone of average moral equipment, the thought of sacrificing one can’t make you feel too warm and sunny inside.

So what was the point of the command, exactly? To test Abraham’s faith and obedience? Okay, fair enough. The question is, on what basis did Abraham’s faith and obedience need to be tested? We recall that God did not seem even slightly perturbed that Abram and Sarai had gone into business on their own to have a child with Hagar. And again, when the time came to send Hagar and Ishmael away, God co-signed on this as well. Ultimately, we have no compelling reason to believe (based on the text) that Abraham even needed to have his faith and obedience tested. God seemed to do it only because he could.

Additionally, God’s test of Abraham is hardly the only Biblical example of God ordering the deaths of others through his human surrogates. Nor does it include all the times that God does the killing himself.

 

[Portofino]

All very well put. I just wish more Christians would own it like this whenever these discussions inevitably come up. Divine Command Theory is repulsive, but when you take it in its full measure, and don’t try to duck and weave around the rougher edges, it’s a sturdy philosophical basis from which to argue.

The problem is that Christians will often attempt square the model of Nazarene with a God who owns us as his property, can kill (and order killing) at his pleasure, and claims an endlessly superior moral foundation to do all of these things. Dropping one or taking up the other one as it suits them. The result is messy theology.

Yes, very well put Still, I don’t believe that Catholics normally explain the problem of suffering in terms of “God can do whatever He wants or sees fit.” Rather, the problem of suffering - and of death – is normally explained in terms of human free will, including the free will of Adam, based on which we’ve inherited original sin. From what I understand, it is original sin that is posited as the origin of death in the world.

Thus, the question “why do we become sick and die?” becomes analogous to the question, “why do some go to hell?” The apologist is essentially saying, “God is not responsible for suffering and death; we are responsible for suffering and death”; just as they say, “God didn’t choose hell for you; you chose hell for you.”

John Calvin, ironically, would have been more inclined to say, "God is God and can do as He sees fit, including sending you to hell – not as your choice, but as His choice.

 

[jochoa]

No because the root intent of your act is causing the death of your son. Look at self-defense. The death of the attacker isn’t the root intent. Defending yourself is the root intent, the death of the attacker is a byproduct of that. That’s why if you cause the death of the attacker when you could defend yourself otherwise (not kill him) it goes from moral to immoral. An example of the first would be someone coming at you with a gun with the clear intent to harm you and your only option is to shoot him. An example of the second would be a drunk tries to attack you (no weapons) from 10 feet away in a room full of cops. The first your only option in defending yourself is to cause the death of the attacker, the second you have other options available.

Please consider the following point:
In my response and reasoning, the root intent of my act was not given. It turns out, the root intent for God asking us/Abraham to “kill” our sons is for self-defense, in which we cannot defend ourselves otherwise, which is why it is Moral Law.

Please consider the following line of thinking:
God wants us to be with Him in heaven. In heaven there are no worries and great joy. One location for Heaven is in our hearts. Therefore, by some means, we have the ability to experience Heaven while on earth. We have the ability to experience no worries and great joy. Therefore, God is giving an instruction in how to experience no worries and great joy while living on earth, when He states, “kill your son.” If we make our children’s lives on earth matter inappropriately, and they happen to die before we do, we will experience tremendous worry and sadness. Their earthly death is something we are defenseless to, therefore, the only self-defense we have to remain in heaven eternally is to make our children, our parents, as well as our own lives not matter. Please always keep in mind, this does not mean to treat them mean or without respect and appreciation, instead continually strive to treat everyone with greater patience and kindness, while not allowing their life or actions to have any negative impact on your peace.

Thanks for sharing your perspective! I look forward to further discussion!

 

[VeritasLuxMea]

The reason that there is no good answer for this is that it never happened.

It is a story to explain to the faithful that although human sacrifice has happened in the past, it is not acceptable.

Sad truth is that if we recognize that the story is fictive, it actually makes that much more sense… but because so many hold up the Bible as a false idol, they will continue painting themselves into corners.

Of course, this does raise the question of why God would wait multiple centuries to bother informing us that human sacrifice is not a good thing… but that’s a whole different manner.

 

[Giants]

Yes, very well put Still, I don’t believe that Catholics normally explain the problem of suffering in terms of “God can do whatever He wants or sees fit.” Rather, the problem of suffering - and of death – is normally explained in terms of human free will, including the free will of Adam, based on which we’ve inherited original sin. From what I understand, it is original sin that is posited as the origin of death in the world.

Thus, the question “why do we become sick and die?” becomes analogous to the question, “why do some go to hell?” The apologist is essentially saying, “God is not responsible for suffering and death; we are responsible for suffering and death”; just as they say, “God didn’t choose hell for you; you chose hell for you.”

John Calvin, ironically, would have been more inclined to say, "God is God and can do as He sees fit, including sending you to hell – not as your choice, but as His choice.

Right, and Calvinism tends to produce, in my eyes, a more principled faith. Granted, the principles are repulsive, but you can’t pretend that they leave you guessing on what it is they think.